Confederates moving capitol from Mobile to Richmond (war, Great Britain, Washington)

[CelticViking]

It is interesting that you never hear much about the original confederates capitol of Mobile. I found this article that I thought maybe some would like that talks about the transition and why the transition was made.




Why the Confederate Capital Moved From Montgomery to Richmond?

[stillkit]

I've never understood the thought processes behind moving the Confederate Capital to within 100 miles of the largest concentration of Federal troops and into an area so open to attack from so many directions. Militarily, it makes no sense to me.

I've always believed Charleston would have been a better choice, not only because it was more easily defensible (it was never taken from the sea) but because politically, it was the seedbed of revolution and the most hated southern city by the northerner's. As history ultimately showed, the north would spare no expense to take it.

All moving the captiol to Richmond did was to consign northern Viriginia to the pits of hell. By the time the war was over, that part of the state was wiped clean of any semblance of civilization and stripped bare of it's resources, including most of it's timber. It took decades to recover.

If Wilmer McClean could see that coming, why couldn't Jeff Davis?

[Zea mays]

Originally Posted by CelticViking

It is interesting that you never hear much about the original confederates capitol of Mobile.

That's probably because the Confederate capital was never Mobile.

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by Zea mays

That's probably because the Confederate capital was never Mobile.

Yep, it was Montgomery.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by stillkit

I've never understood the thought processes behind moving the Confederate Capital to within 100 miles of the largest concentration of Federal troops and into an area so open to attack from so many directions. Militarily, it makes no sense to me.

Virginia was easier to defend. There was only ~150 miles of front lines bound by the ocean on one side and the Appalachian mountain range on the other. Even better, there were no north-south flowing rivers that the superior Union navy could use to attack. They would need to engage the Confederates on land exclusively, without naval support.

Compare this to Montgomery. It is located halfway between an enormous front with no geographic barriers. The Confederate army in the west was much smaller and poorly equipped, and in fact had to constantly be on the move in order to match federal incursions. Combine that with easy to navigate rivers such as the Tennessee (which partially flowed through Alabama) and you have a serious disadvantage.

Federal armies were no smaller in the west, recall that Holleck descended on Corinth with an army larger than 120,000 vs. a rebel army half that size.

[MrMarbles]

Richmond would have to be defended anyway, even if it weren't the capital. Virginia was crucial to the rebel war effort.

[CelticViking]

I mean Montgomery...haha

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

Virginia was easier to defend. There was only ~150 miles of front lines bound by the ocean on one side and the Appalachian mountain range on the other. Even better, there were no north-south flowing rivers that the superior Union navy could use to attack. They would need to engage the Confederates on land exclusively, without naval support.

Compare this to Montgomery. It is located halfway between an enormous front with no geographic barriers. The Confederate army in the west was much smaller and poorly equipped, and in fact had to constantly be on the move in order to match federal incursions. Combine that with easy to navigate rivers such as the Tennessee (which partially flowed through Alabama) and you have a serious disadvantage.

Federal armies were no smaller in the west, recall that Holleck descended on Corinth with an army larger than 120,000 vs. a rebel army half that size.

The federal's first, serious advance on Richmond was by sea and up the James River, which led right into the heart of Richmond. Were it not for McClelland allowing his force to be divided by the flooded Chickahominy and the failure to subdue the Confederate battery at Drewery's Bluff, they might have succeeded.

You're right about Virginia between Richmond and Washington as being defensible because there are several major rivers which cut across the federal's route of advance. However, those were just hinderances, not barriers, as even poor old Burnside proved when he forced a passage over the Rappahannock in the face of rebel opposition.

And, I wasn't talking about Montgomery as a better choice. I was talking about Charleston, SC.

[Irishtom29]

Well as Grant (and Linclon and sometimes even Halleck) was aware the proper goal should've been the destruction of rebel armies not the occupation of real estate. Real estate was important insofar as it aided the destruction of enemy armies. Putting aside of course such political war goals as the occupation of east Tennessee to aid it's Unionists.

That Lee was required to defend Richmond made it a handy anvil against which to smash his army.

Montgomery is harder to approach than Richmond and was more easily approached by way of Mobile than by the Tennessee River which dips down into northern Alabama but which is quite a distance from Montgomery. An overland approach down from the Tennessee would have no railroad to base logistics on; Montgomery had railroad connections to Mobile, Pensacola and Atlanta but none to the Tennessee River except by way of Atlanta and Chattanooga.

The most important line of advance for the Federal western armies was the Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta one which was the axis that ended up causing the most destruction to the main rebel western army. Unfortunately the Federal army given that job had commanders almost as inept and slow as those as the Army of the Potomac and it was only after the energetic Army of the Tennessee turned it's attention to that line after the fall of the Mississippi line that The Army of the Cumberland picked up it's pace.

[J'aimeDesVilles]

I am not a historian so I am just taking a stab at this.

There is a concept in urban geography known as a forward capital. Basically this is when a nation relocates its capital to the periphery for economic or political reasons, or to reorient the focus of the nation's culture. Moscow is a classic example.

Perhaps by relocating the capital to Richmond the South hoped to pull Maryland and Delaware into their fold. Additionally, by having a slant toward the Atlantic seaboard maybe they thought would help in luring Great Britain and other European powers to their side.

Just a thought.